The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[AV1611VET]

We can even observe new species come into existence, such as new bacteria.

It's still bacteria -- just uglier.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Observing a frog jump from Point A to Point B doesn't mean it can jump the Grand Canyon.

Observing bacteria or fruit flies evolve into more bacteria or fruit flies doesn't mean man came from apes.

So if I have a population of fruit flies and, in 20 years, the descendants of those flies lose their wings and become wormlike, that would be evolution to you?

 

[biggles53]

Observing a frog jump from Point A to Point B doesn't mean it can jump the Grand Canyon.

Observing bacteria or fruit flies evolve into more bacteria or fruit flies doesn't mean man came from apes.

No, we have further evidence for that, as you well know...

Now, if you're looking for the sandbox so that you can join all the other kiddies at play....it's just over there......

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's still bacteria.

Just because a human life span isn't long enough to see it become anything else doesn't mean it can't.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if I have a population of fruit flies and, in 20 years, the descendants of those flies lose their wings and become wormlike, that would be evolution to you?

I suppose it would.

If scientists named this vermiform under the same genus as the fruit fly, then I would assume they would conclude microevolution has occurred; but if they give it a new genus, then they can say macroevolution has occurred.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, we have further evidence for that,

Ya ... on paper.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I suppose it would.

If scientists named this vermiform under the same genus as the fruit fly, then I would assume they would conclude microevolution has occurred; but if they give it a new genus, then they can say macroevolution has occurred.

Good to know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just because a human life span isn't long enough to see it become anything else doesn't mean it can't.

But it has never been observed to do so in real time.

Only on paper.

You cannot convince someone that macroevolution has occurred with hard evidence.

You have to use drawings.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But it has never been observed to do so in real time.

Only on paper.

You cannot convince someone that macroevolution has occurred with hard evidence.

You have to use drawings.

The kind of evolution you are looking for would normally take hundreds, thousands, even millions of years to occur depending on what creature you start with. Humans can, however, push this process faster by artificially manipulating environments to be selective of certain traits and removing those in the population that do not express a trait to some extent.

So here is another question. If I use an environment of my design in my experiment, and remove individuals that don't have the traits I am looking for so they can't breed (imitating death), but I did not directly instigate mutations by manipulating the animals themselves, would you still consider that evolution?

 

[biggles53]

But it has never been observed to do so in real time.

Only on paper.

You cannot convince someone that macroevolution has occurred with hard evidence.

You have to use drawings.

Lies...

ERVs are not drawings......fossils are not drawings....genomes are not drawings...

Lying for your god....disgraceful...!

And drop the pitiful "you weren't there to see it" whine.....according to that weak challenge, hardly any crime would ever be solved...

Grow up...

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It's still bacteria -- just uglier.

You say that as if bacteria was a species name, or perhaps even a genus name. It isn't. It is rather broader than that. If you refer to the taxonomic system and check out where the name 'bacteria' sits, you'll discover just how much your above statement actually undermines the point you think you are making.

 

[AV1611VET]

You say that as if bacteria was a species name, or perhaps even a genus name. It isn't.

Ya ... I notice bacteria has its own code.

Many species were placed under the genus. Given that the genus was abolished in the process of forming the Bacteriological Code there is no such thing as an official list of species present.

SOURCE

All on paper.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Ya ... I notice bacteria has its own code.

SOURCE

All on paper.

So have you found out what taxonomic rank bacteria have yet? And what that means for your macro-evolution argument?

 

[AV1611VET]

So have you found out what taxonomic rank bacteria have yet?

Right now, I believe Wikipedia say it was Domain.

And what that means for your macro-evolution argument?

Yes.

As I have shown, scientists have made an exception for bacteria -- exempting it from Linnaeus' Satanic classification system and giving it a code all its own, while at the same time moving it up the ladder to Domain.

Thus standard rules of macroevolution (old genus → new genus) do not apply.

How convenient.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Right now, I believe Wikipedia say it was Domain.

Yes.

As I have shown, scientists have made an exception for bacteria -- exempting it from Linnaeus' Satanic classification system and giving it a code all its own, while at the same time moving it up the ladder to Domain.

Thus standard rules of macroevolution (old genus → new genus) do not apply.

How convenient.

So instead of quietly digesting the information, working out why bacteria are classed as a domain and promising not to make the same mistake again, you are now running with the classification of bacteria being a scientific conspiracy instead.

I see.

I remember reading about this behaviour in some psychology article but I've forgotten what it's called.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Linnaeus' Satanic classification system

Seriously?

 

[AV1611VET]

I remember reading about this behaviour in some psychology article but I've forgotten what it's called.

Was it Scientism Ameriscam?

Oh, wait.

You said psychology.

Nevermind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yes, seriously.

You seriously think satan was involved in Linnaeus's classification system? How exactly?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Was it Scientism Ameriscam?

Oh, wait.

You said psychology.

Nevermind.

Why are you so frightened of psychology? Why would anything about the way the human mind works threaten your faith? Or is it that you are frightened of the way your own mind works?